From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fromal v. Lake

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 2, 2007
223 F. App'x 203 (4th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

Nos. 06-1278, 06-1670.

Submitted: March 29, 2007.

Decided: April 2, 2007.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00067-nkm).

Charles A. and Patricia W. Fromal, Appellants Pro Se. Calvin Wooding Fowler, Jr., Williams Mullen, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

No. 06-1278, affirmed; No. 06-1670, dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


In appeal No. 06-1278, Charles A. Fromal and Patricia W. Fromal appeal from the district court's order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fromal v. Lake Monticello Owner's Ass'n, No. 3:05-cv-00067-nkm, 2006 WL 167894 (W.D.Va. Jan. 23, 2006).

In appeal No. 06-1670, the Fromals seek to appeal from the district court's order dismissing their action against Defendants for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court's order was entered on the docket on May 3, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on June 9, 2006. Because the Fromals failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 06-1278, AFFIRMED.

No. 06-1670, DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Fromal v. Lake

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 2, 2007
223 F. App'x 203 (4th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Fromal v. Lake

Case Details

Full title:Charles A. FROMAL; Patricia W. Frontal, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAKE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 2, 2007

Citations

223 F. App'x 203 (4th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Olekanma v. Wolfe

Moreover, Plaintiff's reliance on the identified sections of Title 18 of the United States Code and of the…

El-Bey v. Rogalski

See Taccino v. City of Cumberland, Md., No. 09-2703, 2010 WL 3070146, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 5, 2010) ("While…